Session 9.1: An investigation into the impact of peer- and self-marking in a first year biochemistry module
Biological Sciences
Dr Caroline Smith, University of Westminster
Peer-and self-marking can be used as tools to engage students and provide immediate feedback. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of peer- and self-marking of a formative assessment on performance in a first year biochemistry module.
Level 4 Life Science and Biomedical students (n=458) were assigned to either peer- or self-mark a formative assignment about enzyme kinetics. Subsequent performance on a summative enzyme kinetic assignment was compared to the previous year’s cohort who had not used formative assessment and had had a tutor lead session to prepare for the summative assessment; mean marks significantly increased from 52.6 ± 24.4 % (n=478; 2014) to 61.6 ± 24.6 % (n=458; 2015) p<0.0001 by unpaired t-test.
Students completed a short survey using Likert-type responses they reported that the peer-or self-marking exercise had improved understanding. Peer- but not self-marking would be a beneficial tool for further formative assessments.
Session 9.2: Using statistical analysis of student marks and feedback to characterise module assessment performance
General
Dr Tom Reader, University of Nottingham
Student marks reflect not just their academic performance on a piece of work but also variation in the nature of the assessment the efficacy of the marking process and the characteristics of the subject being studied. Student and examiner feedback help us to diagnose problems relating to the fairness of marks and the ability of assessments to discriminate among students but detailed numerical analysis of marks has he potential to provide a more rigorous evaluation of our assessment processes. Here I present the findings of a systematic statistical analysis of marks and student feedback from a range of modules in biological subjects in all three years of a standard Bachelor’s degree. The results identify modules with unusually high or low marks profiles and discriminability and problems with assessment and marks entry. The data also hint at causal relationships between performance in assessment staff input (contact hours) and student feedback.
Session 9.3: Drones bones & mobile phones: transforming STEM through maker education
General
Dr Mark Feltham, Liverpool John Moores University and Ms Caroline Keep, Future Tech Studio
The Maker Movement is a technological and creative learning revolution taking place around the world that has exciting implications for education. It focusses on hands-on learning by providing learning environments (Makerspaces) in which learners are given access to new tools and technology such as 3D printing robotics microprocessors wearable computing e-textiles “smart” materials and programming languages to support the creation of tangible physical artefacts. Such Maker Education (MakerEd) gives students opportunities to brainstorm invent design and build: and then time to fix mistakes improve test and improve again as part of their formal education and hence provides us with an exciting opportunity to develop new flexible pedagogies in which the creativity of the student as hacker/maker can flourish. Here we report on and showcase a range of student MakerEd projects developed as part of our Fundamentals of Scientific Research module and signpost the wealth of opportunities for future development.
Session 9.4: Transforming learning with mobile technology: lessons learnt from a STEM faculty‐wide iPad roll out
General
Dr Laura Boubert, University of Westminster
In September 2015 the University of Westminster’s Faculty of Science and Technology began transforming its learning by providing over 2000 staff and level 5 and 6 students with i-Pads. This ambitious project comes with a multitude of challenges encompassing technology regulations distribution legal aspects but above all else its success relies on staff and students choosing to adopt the technology and adapt their practice. Here we present an overview of the project so far with a review of what has been learnt to date and the journey ahead of us. We will present current approaches to adapting teaching to include mobile technology such as Puentedura’s 2006 SAMR model for introducing technology into the classroom and we will explore some of the barriers to change e.g. Karsenti & Fievez (2013).
Session 9.5: Teaching research ethics in an era of impact: international lessons
GEES
Dr Jennifer O'Brien, University of Manchester
Independent research contributes a significant proportion of many a degree programme normally though a dissertation. Inspired by an educational landscape of ‘impact’ students often design research that utilises innovative methodologies to understand inequality challenge structural norms and make positive social change. Such research poses ethical dilemmas in the design in the data collection in the write up process or during marking. Simultaneously the ethics procedure for academics in the UK has become more rigid and legalised with many proposals being refused by ethics boards or the research process extended with significant paperwork. Whilst the literature is abound with discussion about ethical research teaching research ethics is becoming more complex and ‘methods lectures’ will never be popular with students. Drawing on findings from research conducted with lecturers and staff from three international universities this paper critically considers what ‘ethical’ means in research and how to use that understanding to equip students with the tools that they need to undertake independent research that has impact but is ethical.
Session 9.7: Delivering science using team-based learning approaches: Lessons learned and hands-on demonstration
Physical Sciences
Dr Rebecca Butler and Dr Mark Hewitt, University of Wolverhampton
In 2014 the School of Pharmacy at the University of Wolverhampton received the maximum six-year accreditation from the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) for the innovative design of their new MPharm course. Designed to enrich the learning professionality and employability of pharmacists this new approach embraces Team Based Learning (TBL) as the predominant teaching style for the first two years of the course. TBL is a structured form of small-group learning that accentuates student preparation out of class and application of knowledge in class. This workshop will commence with an short insight and reflection on the impact on staff and student by embracing this teaching method and will be followed by a hands-on workshop allowing the audience to take part in a session containing all aspects of TBL.
Session 9.8: A resource toolkit to support STEM students in making use of their assessment feedback
Psychology
Dr Naomi Winstone, University of Surrey and Dr Robert Nash, Aston University
In order for teaching in STEM disciplines to enable students to succeed it is essential that students receive feedback to drive their learning and skill development. One of the key assessment and feedback challenges in STEM education is how to balance student satisfaction with feedback alongside increasing pressure on lecturers’ time. One solution is to focus efforts not on the provision of feedback but on training students to be active recipients of feedback. The aim of this workshop is to provide participants with concrete tools and strategies to support student engagement with feedback. This will be achieved through activities designed to surface and resolve common barriers to student use of feedback. We will also show how a set of resources called the Developing Engagement with Feedback Toolkit can be used flexibly to tailor support to individual learners targeting the reasons why students can’t and won’t make use of their feedback.
